This chapter deals with the role played by the Parliament and its international actorness in order to influence the agenda of the global governance of cultural industries, and in particular its ability to promote the CDCE within its international relations and the EU international agreements.

New Publication : W.Cusson, Gabrielle et Culpi, Ludmila, "The BRICS' New Development Bank; a China-led challenge to Western Hegemony?", in Eckart Woertz (Ed.), Reconfiguration of the Global South Africa and Latin America and the 'Asian Century', Routeledge, 2016, pp. 107-124.

About the Book

Since the 1980s there has been a steady shift from West to East in the international system, economically, politically and culturally. Emerging markets in Asia have moved up the value chain of industrial production processes, while the share of Western industrialized countries in global gross domestic product has declined. Countries such as China and India are asserting themselves in security matters and seeking new avenues for investment flows and development co-operation. China's expected shift from export-led growth to domestic consumption might further change patterns of trade and capital flows, and it is an open debate whether the growth dynamics of India might outstrip those of China.

While the rise of China and other Asian powers has been studied extensively, much less work has been done on how Africa and Latin America position themselves in this process. What will the role be of Africa and Latin America in the 'Asian Century' and associated reconfigurations of global value chains? Will these regions be able to assert themselves and find a voice of their own? Will they manage to develop industries of their own and diversify trade relations? Will they launch new ways of regional south-south co-operation? What is the role of migrant communities and cultural exchange? Do Western and Asian approaches to these regions differ (Washington vs. Beijing consensus)?

This book brings together renowned academics from Africa, Latin America, Europe and the USA, who bring refreshing perspectives on an under-researched topic, ranging from a conceptualization of the issue within new theoretical approaches, to unique case studies based on field work.

Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions

Background

Since the 1980s, increasing financial globalization, economic integration as well as liberalization of trade exchanges and investment have raised major concerns for several national governments and cultural organizations regarding the effects of such new context on cultural diversity. Given the twofold (economic and cultural) nature of cultural goods and services, which encompass both symbolic and material production, their treatment within international trade agreements became the subject of growing political interest.

The importance of establishing international norms on cultural goods and services has risen since the early 1990s, based on the advent of the so-called "cultural exception" (exception culturelle) in international and regional economic integration, as well as UN debates on an alternative conception of development, going beyond its economic aspects and having, among others, a cultural dimension. Indeed, a coalition of actors, driven by France and Canada, advocated the adoption of a "cultural exception" allowing to exclude cultural goods and services from the agenda of trade negotiations, such as those which led to the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) within the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1993, the free trade agreement (FTA) between the United States (USA) and Canada in 1989 and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the USA, Canada and Mexico in 1994. By the late 1990s, however, the term "cultural exception" was gradually replaced with the more inclusive and less defensive term "cultural diversity", and discussions led to the decision to pursue a counterbalance to trade agreements outside international trade frameworks and, eventually, within UNESCO.

In parallel, UNESCO had been exploring how to foster the links between culture and development, seeking to become the main international arena for the expression of the concept of cultural development. The organization had been promoting a change from a strictly economic conception of development to an enlarged approach, which integrated other dimensions, such as culture. Several UNESCO meetings and normative tools had indeed demonstrated efforts to disseminate the concept of cultural development at the international level and to raise awareness by the international community of the relevance of cultural policies. The 1982 World Conference on cultural policies (MONDIACULT), the World Decade for Cultural Development (1988-1997), the report "Our Creative Diversity" by the World Commission on Culture and Development (1996), and the International Conference on Cultural Policies for Development in Stockholm (1998) offer relevant examples of such efforts.

By the end of the 1990s, an alliance of actors including multilateral international and regional organizations (Council of Europe, International Organization of Francophonie, Organization of American States), several national governments (France, Canada, China, South Africa, Brazil) and non-governmental organizations (National Coalitions for Cultural Diversity, International Network for Cultural Diversity) was mobilized in favour of cultural diversity and the establishment of a new international binding legal instrument within UNESCO (Vlassis 2015: 107-230). The first step was taken with the adoption of the 2001 UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. Exceptionally fast was then the decision to negotiate a new UNESCO convention, complementary to other UNESCO treaties dealing with cultural diversity. Initially entitled "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions", the UNESCO "Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions" (CDEC) was negotiated between 2003 and 2005. As Jean Musitelli explains (Musitelli 2005: 515), the "diversity of cultural expressions" was built on the impetus around both the concepts of "cultural exception" from trade negotiations and "creative diversity", conceptualized by UNESCO.

Following hard negotiations on several issues, such as the interface between trade and culture and the relationship between the convention and other international treaties, the precise scope of such new legal instrument, as well as the dispute settlement mechanism to be foreseen, the CDCE was adopted on October 20, 2005. It entered into force extraordinarily fast, in March 2007.

Coverage

The CDCE is the main multilateral law instrument addressing global and multilevel cultural governance (Aylett 2010). As of August 2016, the CDCE had received the support of 144 Parties, including France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, India, China, Australia and South Korea and the European Union (EU), while the United States of America, Russia, Japan and Pakistan, as well as several Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia) have not ratified the CDCE.

The object of the CDCE is particular vis-à-vis other UNESCO legal texts and does not refer to cultural diversity in the broadest sense of the term. The terminology "diversity of cultural expressions" may, nevertheless, be confusing, considering the use of "cultural expressions" in various other contexts and treaties, within and outside UNESCO. In fact, during negotiations, such term was selected as a shorter replacement for "cultural contents and artistic expressions" and refers, according to article 4.3 of the CDCE, to "expressions that result from the creativity of individuals, groups and societies, and that have cultural content". A systemic interpretation of the CDCE and of UNESCO documents preceding its negotiation provide better clarity on its object and purpose: it addresses a specific aspect of cultural diversity, i.e. the diversity in the offer and the exchanges of cultural goods, services and activities created, produced and distributed by cultural industries, such as literature, music, photos, films, dance, theatre, etc., "whatever the means and technologies used" (article 4.1 CDCE). The CDCE is indeed technologically neutral and may be adequately employed in the current context of rapid technological progress.

The CDCE addresses two main facets of action in favour of a diversified offer of cultural goods and services. The first one is the recognition of the specificity of those goods and services and, consequently, of the legitimacy of cultural policies and the need for a specific legal treatment for such goods and services, including in international trade agreements. The CDCE is very flexible regarding the types of measures and policies to be adopted, as well as the sectors in which Parties may decide to intervene in order to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions when implementing the convention. It contains, however, no legal obligation for the Parties to adopt "cultural exceptions" in their trade agreements - the CDCE provides rather political support in that sense (Graber 2006; Richieri Hanania 2009 and 2014). Moreover, it cannot modify trade agreements already concluded by its Parties. On this matter, article 20 of the CDCE on the relationship with other international agreements (including trade-related treaties) contains two paragraphs, which at a first glance seem to be irreconcilable. They reflect both the willingness to exclude subordination of the CDCE to other treaties and the desire to not undermine other international commitments previously adopted, including in the trade sector. Through this provision, the CDCE has therefore expressly established a relationship based on equality vis-à-vis other treaties (Richieri Hanania 2009: 327-329).

The second aspect addressed by the CDCE, which is also fundamental towards balanced exchanges of cultural goods and services, is cultural cooperation and, in particular, cultural cooperation in favour of development. The CDCE deals directly with the link between culture and development and reiterates the role of culture in sustainable development (article 13 CDCE), ultimately requiring greater coherence and coordination between policies and actions adopted in different fields, such as economic, social, environmental, cultural and development policies (Richieri Hanania 2014: 297-301 and Richieri Hanania 2015). In order to strengthen international cultural cooperation, the CDCE proposes several tools, such as information exchange among the Parties (articles 9 and 19 CDCE), collaborative arrangements (article 15 CDCE), preferential treatment for developing countries (article 16 CDCE), as well as an International Fund for Cultural Diversity, a multi-donor voluntary Fund established under its article 18. Between 2010 and 2015, the Fund has supported 78 projects in 48 developing countries, with contributions accounting for an amount of US$7.6 million. Following the strong involvement of civil society during the CDCE negotiations, its article 11 acknowledges the essential role of civil society in its implementation.

Challenges

Despite its symbolic, political and legal contribution to the "trade and culture" debate and its progressive and significant practical implementation (Richieri Hanania 2014), the CDCE contains few binding obligations on its Parties and remains a hard law instrument with a soft normative content (Vlassis 2011: 495). It provides an important leeway on issues such as cultural cooperation, appropriate cultural policies for the diversity of cultural expressions and the "trade and culture" interface (Neuwirth 2012), but its implementation still remains strongly dependent on each of its Parties' political will (Richieri Hanania 2014: 297; Vlassis 2015: 257-275). The CDCE implementation is also challenged today by the difficulties encountered by most Parties in completely understanding and appropriately addressing challenges brought by new technologies in the creative economy. In order to guide the implementation and promotion of the CDCE provisions by different stakeholders within the digital environment, new operational guidelines are presently under discussion at UNESCO.

References

Aylett, Holly (2010) "An International Instrument for International Cultural Policy: the Challenge of UNESCO's Convention on the Protection and Promotion of Diversity of Cultural Expressions 2005". International Journal of Cultural Studies, 13(4), p. 355-373.

Graber, Christoph Beat (2006) "The New UNESCO Convention on Cultural Diversity: A Counterbalance to the WTO?". Journal of International Economic Law, 9(3), p. 553-574.

Neuwirth, Rostam (2012) "The Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: A Critical Analysis of the Provisions", in Kono, Toshiyuki and Van Uytsel, Steven (ed.) The UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions: A Tale of Fragmentation in International Law,Instersentia, Helsinki, p. 43-70.

Richieri Hanania, Lilian (ed.) (2014) Cultural Diversity in International Law: The Effectiveness of the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, London/New York, Routledge, 320 p.

Richieri Hanania, Lilian (2015) "The UNESCO Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions as a Coordination Framework to promote Regulatory Coherence in the Creative Economy". The International Journal of Cultural Policy, DOI: 10.1080/10286632.2015.1025068, p. 1-20.

The professor Sebastian Santander, director of CEFIR, has just published the following article: "The EU and Brazil in a changing world: strategic partners or competitors?", in Michael Smith, Stephan Keukeleire, Sophie Vanhoonacker (ed.), The Diplomatic System of the European Union Evolution, Change and Challenges, London, Routledge, 2015, pp. 181-196.

Subjects: asian studies, asian law, asian politics and policy, development studies, law and development, law - academic, asian law, european law, law and development, regulation and governance, politics and public policy, asian politics, european politics and policy, international relations, regulation and governance

Extract

The preeminence of the realist theory has long dominated the study of power in international relations, but is nowadays often questioned. The analysis of an emerging power is, as such, a tremendous learning opportunity in this context. In order to go beyond the classical antagonism between the institutional and realist perspectives, this chapter deals with power in an alternative way. By using a heterodox approach to hegemony, it allows understanding of the phenomenon of insidious domination (Cox, 1983; Wintgens and Mariage, 2011/12: 3-20). Indeed, the increase of China's worldwide influence does not only depend on the availability of its tangible and intangible resources, nor on its ability to mobilize them adequately. China also values its brand, both the image it tends to project on the world stage and its external recognition, that is, how other actors in the international system perceive it. In other words, China's rising power is also measured through its capacity to 'assert itself as a reference' for its emerging peers, or even for Western powers (Santander, 2009a: 24).

This chapter studies the role of the Iberian states (Spain and Portugal) in the evolution of the European Union's Latin American strategy. It first identifies the EU member states that have interests in Latin America and discusses the implications of their foreign policy for community-based dialogue with Latin American groups. It then analyses the place held by Latin America in Portuguese foreign policy. It goes on to explore the role played by Spain in the EU's rapprochement with Latin America and in the construction of interregional relations. It then examines the role of the Ibero-American grouping in providing a framework for discussion about Euro-Latin American agreements and concludes with a consideration of the effects that changes in international, European and Latin American politics are having upon EU-Latin American interregionalism.